Community Mechanism for Freeze
Dear all, Here is the updated community mechanism document for the freeze. This includes the dissenting opinions text that Robin and Greg clarified. Best, Grace
Why did the dissenting views on 5A get moved to a footnote? They were in the body of the text of the report in the versions of this document before. Had they been in a footnote before I would have objected. I don't believe it is appropriate to make such a significant change prejudicing minority views after the document is supposedly locked. We were told the document was locked, and yet this change was made with no opportunity to object. Therefore I object now and request the text get moved back to the body of the report as it was in all the previous drafts we reviewed. Thank you, Robin On Aug 1, 2015, at 5:53 PM, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
Dear all,
Here is the updated community mechanism document for the freeze. This includes the dissenting opinions text that Robin and Greg clarified.
Best, Grace <Community Mechanism_0108.docx><Community Mechanism_0108_redline.docx><Community Mechanism_0108_redline.pdf><Community Mechanism_0108.pdf>_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hi Robin, There was another dissenting opinion in the Community Powers section that was in a footnote. I was simply following a formatting consistency. I will confirm with the Chairs, but I don't think it'll be an issue to move the dissenting opinions in Powers and Mechanism to the main body of the text. Those are the only sections with dissenting opinions. Please hold for a confirmation from the Chairs and I will update the draft. Thank you, Grace Sent from my mobile device On Aug 1, 2015, at 21:12, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> wrote: Why did the dissenting views on 5A get moved to a footnote? They were in the body of the text of the report in the versions of this document before. Had they been in a footnote before I would have objected. I don't believe it is appropriate to make such a significant change prejudicing minority views after the document is supposedly locked. We were told the document was locked, and yet this change was made with no opportunity to object. Therefore I object now and request the text get moved back to the body of the report as it was in all the previous drafts we reviewed. Thank you, Robin On Aug 1, 2015, at 5:53 PM, Grace Abuhamad wrote: Dear all, Here is the updated community mechanism document for the freeze. This includes the dissenting opinions text that Robin and Greg clarified. Best, Grace <Community Mechanism_0108.docx><Community Mechanism_0108_redline.docx><Community Mechanism_0108_redline.pdf><Community Mechanism_0108.pdf>_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Grace, Please do update the document to reflect dissenting views as they were before. Saludos, León Enviado desde el móvil. Disculpa brevedad y errores tipográficos.
El ago 1, 2015, a las 8:51 PM, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> escribió:
Hi Robin,
There was another dissenting opinion in the Community Powers section that was in a footnote. I was simply following a formatting consistency. I will confirm with the Chairs, but I don't think it'll be an issue to move the dissenting opinions in Powers and Mechanism to the main body of the text. Those are the only sections with dissenting opinions.
Please hold for a confirmation from the Chairs and I will update the draft.
Thank you, Grace
Sent from my mobile device
On Aug 1, 2015, at 21:12, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
Why did the dissenting views on 5A get moved to a footnote? They were in the body of the text of the report in the versions of this document before. Had they been in a footnote before I would have objected. I don't believe it is appropriate to make such a significant change prejudicing minority views after the document is supposedly locked. We were told the document was locked, and yet this change was made with no opportunity to object. Therefore I object now and request the text get moved back to the body of the report as it was in all the previous drafts we reviewed.
Thank you, Robin
On Aug 1, 2015, at 5:53 PM, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
Dear all,
Here is the updated community mechanism document for the freeze. This includes the dissenting opinions text that Robin and Greg clarified.
Best, Grace <Community Mechanism_0108.docx><Community Mechanism_0108_redline.docx><Community Mechanism_0108_redline.pdf><Community Mechanism_0108.pdf>_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
All good to change / update as suggested J On Sunday, 2 August 2015, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Robin,
There was another dissenting opinion in the Community Powers section that was in a footnote. I was simply following a formatting consistency. I will confirm with the Chairs, but I don't think it'll be an issue to move the dissenting opinions in Powers and Mechanism to the main body of the text. Those are the only sections with dissenting opinions.
Please hold for a confirmation from the Chairs and I will update the draft.
Thank you, Grace
Sent from my mobile device
On Aug 1, 2015, at 21:12, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','robin@ipjustice.org');>> wrote:
Why did the dissenting views on 5A get moved to a footnote? They were in the body of the text of the report in the versions of this document before. Had they been in a footnote before I would have objected. I don't believe it is appropriate to make such a significant change prejudicing minority views after the document is supposedly locked. We were told the document was locked, and yet this change was made with no opportunity to object. Therefore I object now and request the text get moved back to the body of the report as it was in all the previous drafts we reviewed.
Thank you, Robin
On Aug 1, 2015, at 5:53 PM, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
Dear all,
Here is the updated community mechanism document for the freeze. This includes the dissenting opinions text that Robin and Greg clarified.
Best, Grace <Community Mechanism_0108.docx><Community Mechanism_0108_redline.docx><Community Mechanism_0108_redline.pdf><Community Mechanism_0108.pdf> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
Dear all, Here is the updated text with dissenting opinions added into the main text as opposed to footnotes. Best, Grace From: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Date: Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 10:00 PM To: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> Cc: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org>, Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Community Mechanism for Freeze All good to change / update as suggested J On Sunday, 2 August 2015, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Robin,
There was another dissenting opinion in the Community Powers section that was in a footnote. I was simply following a formatting consistency. I will confirm with the Chairs, but I don't think it'll be an issue to move the dissenting opinions in Powers and Mechanism to the main body of the text. Those are the only sections with dissenting opinions.
Please hold for a confirmation from the Chairs and I will update the draft.
Thank you, Grace
Sent from my mobile device
On Aug 1, 2015, at 21:12, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','robin@ipjustice.org');> > wrote:
Why did the dissenting views on 5A get moved to a footnote? They were in the body of the text of the report in the versions of this document before. Had they been in a footnote before I would have objected. I don't believe it is appropriate to make such a significant change prejudicing minority views after the document is supposedly locked. We were told the document was locked, and yet this change was made with no opportunity to object. Therefore I object now and request the text get moved back to the body of the report as it was in all the previous drafts we reviewed.
Thank you, Robin
On Aug 1, 2015, at 5:53 PM, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
Dear all,
Here is the updated community mechanism document for the freeze. This includes the dissenting opinions text that Robin and Greg clarified.
Best, Grace <Community Mechanism_0108.docx><Community Mechanism_0108_redline.docx><Community Mechanism_0108_redline.pdf><Community Mechanism_0108.pdf>_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
There was one additional dissenting opinion filed for Section 3A, updated in the attached. From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> Date: Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 10:06 PM To: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Cc: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Community Mechanism for Freeze Dear all, Here is the updated text with dissenting opinions added into the main text as opposed to footnotes. Best, Grace From: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Date: Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 10:00 PM To: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> Cc: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org>, Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Community Mechanism for Freeze All good to change / update as suggested J On Sunday, 2 August 2015, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Robin,
There was another dissenting opinion in the Community Powers section that was in a footnote. I was simply following a formatting consistency. I will confirm with the Chairs, but I don't think it'll be an issue to move the dissenting opinions in Powers and Mechanism to the main body of the text. Those are the only sections with dissenting opinions.
Please hold for a confirmation from the Chairs and I will update the draft.
Thank you, Grace
Sent from my mobile device
On Aug 1, 2015, at 21:12, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','robin@ipjustice.org');> > wrote:
Why did the dissenting views on 5A get moved to a footnote? They were in the body of the text of the report in the versions of this document before. Had they been in a footnote before I would have objected. I don't believe it is appropriate to make such a significant change prejudicing minority views after the document is supposedly locked. We were told the document was locked, and yet this change was made with no opportunity to object. Therefore I object now and request the text get moved back to the body of the report as it was in all the previous drafts we reviewed.
Thank you, Robin
On Aug 1, 2015, at 5:53 PM, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
Dear all,
Here is the updated community mechanism document for the freeze. This includes the dissenting opinions text that Robin and Greg clarified.
Best, Grace <Community Mechanism_0108.docx><Community Mechanism_0108_redline.docx><Community Mechanism_0108_redline.pdf><Community Mechanism_0108.pdf>_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
participants (4)
-
Grace Abuhamad -
Jordan Carter -
León Felipe Sánchez Ambía -
Robin Gross